To think that taxing high earners even more would actually be a bit unfair?

[bubbleymummy]

I hear this suggested a lot on mumsnet and I really disagree with it. High earners are paying a huge contribution in tax already - thousands and sometimes 10s of thousands more than a lot of people who are clamouring for them to be taxed even more! Why should they be punished for having a highly paid job? How would you like handing nearly half your income over to the government? I think we should be thankful that we do have high earners who are already making a significant contribution. We would be a lot worse off if we drove them away with higher taxes!

Just drank too much tea today and can't sleep! :)

It's not strange, it's normal. Not caring what happens to your money is strange.

Yes, I have to agree with Appletrees here. If people weren't so bothered about how their money was spent, then why was there a government expenses scandal?

Surely no-one would have cared?

Nothing to do with not caring what happens to your money. How taxes are spent is very important. But a bit at the idea that people who are much worse off than I am should "appreciate" me for obeying the law and paying my taxes.

Sorry offpiste - I knew that was going to come across wrong! I should not try to post when half asleep!

I don't think people should be grateful - yes we are all obliged to do it. I just think it unfair to look at someone else, judge them on their salary without knowing their circumstances and judge the amount they are paying as 'not good enough' without appreciating that they have actually contributed a lot and aren't necessarily 'able to afford more' simply because they fall into that higher bracket. I think it is unfair for someone who is paying a fraction of what someone else is paying to label that contribution as 'not enough'. Why do they think they are in the position to demand more from someone who is already paying more in tax than they are? That is not fair.

That's a fair point. We all need to pay our taxes. The law is the law and it's there for a good reason. However, as you say, everyone should be diligent about how there money is spent and the government should held to account for the significant spending, borrowing and sashays that seems to have occurred across the board of services provided including education, healthcare and social services.

Agree with posts from both tytanius and appletrees.

I agree that many people's attitudes towards public money is appalling. It isn't seen as money which has been worked for, its seen as some bottomless purse to be squandered on all sorts of dubious things.

And tytanius - totally agree that the origin of this feeling of inequity frequently seems to be people just generally bemoaning the fact that some other people are better off than they are. It seems a terrible waste to focus one's energy on that. For the majority of us, some people will be better off, some will be worse off. Likewise with 'luck' or 'fate' or whatever you wish to call it - most of us will know people who have had worse misfortunes befall them than we have, but equally we will know people who haven't.

Pass me a cup of that tea tytanius! I have a nearly 2 year old who will be waking me up in too few hours! :)

I hate auto-correct. :(

Just because one is morally obliged does not mean it should not be appreciated.

My godson is morally obliged (well kinda) to send me a thank you letter for my generous Christmas present. He has done so. I appreciate it. Had he not, I would still buy him a present next year, because I know what kids are like. But I appreciate what he has done, as he appreciates my gift.

It is to do with mutual respect. "Appreciate" should be defined in terms of respect rather than gratitude here.

It is not appreciated, nor is it respected, in my experience.

Well, this tax thing is certainly a tough nut to crack. People will always have opposing views, sometimes for good reason and sometimes for no good reason. I think we've seen both of those today. :)

I do think that it is nice to be appreciated and appreciate what others do for you. However, being appreciated for paying your taxes is probably stretching that a bit far. Rather, I DO think that people should appreciate the benefits that they receive thanks to the taxes that the whole of the working population pay (apart from a small minority; either legally or illegally). I know that if I fell on harder times, then I would certainly appreciate them. However, I wouldn't necessarily be grateful to the tax payers, but I would be grateful for the benefits... if that makes sense.

I do think that there are those who genuinely need their benefits, but there are also those who are content to sit back and feel that they are owed a living by the state and do little to personally change their situation.

Benefits should be seen as a temporary measure, where people are perfectly "able", rather than a lifestyle or state of being. I think it is sometimes attitudes here that are the root cause of some of the burden we ALL have to bear; as well as some of the more dubious government programmes and unnecessary spending.

"However, being appreciated for paying your taxes is probably stretching that a bit far. Rather, I DO think that people should appreciate the benefits that they receive thanks to the taxes that the whole of the working population pay."

This is true. I don't expect gratitude, no, I think you have put it well. What I expect and want is respect and appreciation not of me or my contribution, but of the fact that it is public money, not free money, that grows on trees, that people are entitled to either as spenders (MPs expenses good example but also: the way the system is designed to max out budgets at end-year or you won't get the same money next time etc: there are so many examples of wastage) or receivers (ibid your last par Tytanius)but money hard-earned by working people who put it into the pot in good faith.

I think it's a little irresponsible not to demand that, I really do.

That is to say: I think your first sentence is mistaken only in referring to receivers. My own experience is that spenders of public money can be just as bloody feckless, and it's not even driven by need. It's just driven by don't give a crap.

Good point.

I heard a man on TV, in the USA, talking about rich people paying higher taxes. As a rich man himself he said he would be happy to pay more tax if it meant society would benefit or the national debt paid down - but he objected to paying more as he could not be at all sure it would be used wisely.

Actually BeenBeta I agree with that.

Although I am far from rich myself, I do understand that higher taxes must be part of the solution of paying our national debt off......along with cuts.

As long as the government are intent on paying our debts then I'll begrudgingly pay more tax.

What I object to are those who want to tax "the rich" (aka anyone who earns more than they do) to provide for the things we clearly cannot afford and what got us into massive debt to begin with.

I agree that taxing high earners more is unfair - it shows the youth of today that there is no point striving for a good career/wage as most of it will be taken from you anyway and used to fund the lifesyle choices of those that choose not to work.

I'd prefer to see tax loopholes closed so that everyone pays the correct amount of tax rather than avoiding it.

This is all just bollocks.

Another round of bashing the people who work hard and pay tax whilst all you 'unlucky' (for sake of arguement and fairness replace with lazy feckers) think it is fair that we pay out more and more for you to have the same standard of life as us.

You want it work for it, if this were a country where health care and education were not free I could see your point in it being about luck but we all have the same chances - some of us choose to take those chances and work hard and some don't.

ANd Happymummy the youth of today are blinkered from seeing their parents claim tax credits to pay for their holiday or new TV - they don't need to work hard - they even get paid to go to school , what happened to having a paper round or doing lawn cutting or waitressing - teaches you a sense of pride, the value of money and a work ethic - no no no people would rather their kids were given £30 a week to stay at school - what the hell is that teaching them.

I think you are being oversensitive Madame. I am a HRT and my husband will soon be over the threshold for the top rate of tax. I do not feel bashed.

I think that is a rather sweeping statement about the youth of today as well.

Happymumofone - excellent point re tax loopholes. I work in an industry where I see limited companies liquidate to avoid paying debt that is not secured by directors guarantee normally crown debt - in 2010 I would say I saw instances totalling over a £1 million of unpaid tax,vat and paye. These companies then re-form (Phoenix) with a slight change in directors and of company name (as simple as xyz ltd to xyz uk ltd) and continue to trade by 'buying' the assets of the old limited company....and this is totally legal There are some instances where this is absolute last resort to keep the company afloat or avoid making a lot of people redundant but I see too many cases where it is used purely for tax avoidance.

If they could look a addressing that loophole it would be a good start

I agree that Madame's post is very strong, but I sympathise with the point behind it.

Things have swung too far with the welfare state, with taxes being used not to provide the basics which people need to live on if they fall on hard times, but to prop up a lifestyle which in many cases isn't that different to that of the people paying the taxes!

Thats the rub, isn't it. Getting the balance right between supporting people in need, and incentivising people to work hard and improve their situation.

The irony of things like EMA, is that you now get many young people who aren't entitled to it, who have to take on Saturday/evening jobs, which disadvantages them in terms of having less study time. As a teacher I see quite a few 6th formers in this situation. Why should they be penalised simply because they have parents who both work, yet can't afford to provide bus/lunch/book/stationery money each week?

when are people going to stop the excuse that the rich have bigger mortgages so they are also hard up. Dump the big house with a huge mortgage, if you are struggeling buy a smaller house. I hear people say "of but its not that easy what about schools" what do you think poor peole do?

It is that easy. actually

Read the thread - not all HR tax payers do live in huge houses with big mortgages. Many of them live in very modest houses and can't downsize.

MadameCastafiore

"You want it work for it, if this were a country where health care and education were not free I could see your point in it being about luck but we all have the same chances - some of us choose to take those chances and work hard and some don't."

I'm assuming then that you grew up in care, and suffer from a life limiting disability?

If you do, all respect to you, and I will count you as one of the - IMO very few - people who have genuinely made their own way despite drawing the short straw when they were born.

I think my DH and I would feel much better about paying 40% and 50% tax rates, respectively, if the UK public finances were in a sustainable position.

First, money needs to get to those who genuinely need it. Instead, 32% goes to those who already earn above average wages (£50bn/year). How can tax credits be available for people on up to £58k/year? How can people get £2k/month in housing benefit?

Second, nothing is being done about the £3.8 tn unfunded pension deficit. People are still getting public sector final salary pensions. The retirement age is stupidly low. There is no means testing of state pensions or other benefits.

Lastly, the cuts being made to reduce the £160bn deficit are just flea bites, many of which hurt young/disabled but don't touch the baby boomers. Why is the NHS ring fenced but not education or defence?

The problem is that there aren't enough rich people that taxing them more would make a big difference.

Only 1% of people earn more than £100k. Less than 0.1% earn more than £1 million. Even if you changed the 50% rate to 90% it wouldn't raise a noticeable amount of revenue, apart from being very unfair and probably giving rise to more people taking advantage of tax avoidance schemes.

My personal feeling is that the tax rate should never be more than 50%. You should never have to give away more than you keep.